Did this cost benefit analysis include the figures for the Jamaican immigrant burglar and gerontophile rapist Delroy Grant? The 20-year police investigation, his 27 year imprisonment, the cost of his ten children by five women? What was the calculation used for the suffering by his hundreds of elderly victims?
Did the analysis include the cost of the Metropolitan Police Operation Trident to (unsuccessfully) tackle black gun crime in London?
Did it include any crime statistics at all?

My thesis is that Europe itself was built based on Greek philosophy and Christian values. If Christian values are open to all, no real Christian would be opposed to migration from other countries provided that those migrants integrate with the culture and renounce violence.

I fear that many of your correspondents fail to grasp the ultimate driver of immigration - it is emigration from mass poverty. As JK Galbraith pointed out emigration has been the traditional response for millenia.Those with get up and go, get up and come.Immigration is symptomatic whilst emigration is causal.

Exactly!!!! I would add one more thing. Europeans moving to US and Australia were not emigrants!!! They were settlers!!!

It is a big difference. Because a person moving to EU from Iran/Nigeria/Syria HAS TO ADAPT and change almost everything about the way they think about the society.
The XIX German/English/Polish person would move to a society that was an almost exact copy of the one in EU without feudalism....

If you look at some communities ex. in Texas, they were just a village from Germany or Central Europe that has decided to move. They brought their customs, religion and values with them.

The emigrants now are facing a society that needs to adapt and change them...

Immigration is not the answer, it never has been. When Australia, Canada and America experienced the great immigration boons of the previous two centuries, they were large unihibited and growing nations. There was no social assitance of any sort, you went at your own risk. What the Rich need now, is a baby boom. A homegrown person, is always better than someone who comes at a latter stage. Why, because culture is indeed different, and that matters.

Secondly, on the topic of doctors. What training does a doctor from Nigeria have? Have you been to Nigeria, have you stayed in a hospital there?

All our problems will be solved when we get a birth rate over the replacement of 2.1. We have to stop focusing on consumption and start focusing on growth, and the growth of our population is paramount. Nothing else matters.

hikeandski
Interesting that it’s a study done in Vancouver.
When I was living there 52% of the population was actually NOT born in Canada.. and the remaining 48% did not look very Anglo either.
And yet the best city I ever lived and ranked best city in the world (or at least in the top 3) for the past 10 years

An exceptional book and a robust hope for the world! If only the rich countries would listen! My only concern is cultural conflict as we already see in Europe. If fundamentalism gives way to reason then I think we will have a better world.

Funny, a recent survey ordered by a pro immigrant minister in Norway found that immigrants from non-western countries where a net loss when taking into account the infrastructure needed to accomodate them, simply becuase even those who come here working, retire or end up on disability pensions on average 10 years after they arrive. In addition, their women hardly participate in the labor force. GDP may go up with this immigration, but net happiness goes down. Society is changing around us in a way the majority does not like.

Needless to say the minister discarded the findings of his own comission.

When will the economist learn that this is not just the opinion of the disgruntled and uneducated, but a fact those of us that live in non-western immigrant heavy areas see every single day.

A book all about the thronging masses of humanity. Africans too poor in their over-populated nations? Head to Europe or the USA to earn more money. Mexican women hold American babies while their mothers go out to work -- what about their own children? What a great world if ALL you think about is money (a mere medium of exchange with imputed value), and if you really believe more people mean more money. This has NOT been happening. Over-populated nations are POORER because there are too MANY people. According to this review, this book does not consider the environmental costs of too many people sloshing around the world, soaking up finite natural resources in the process. Value lies in the actual resources used to feed and sustain all forms of life. Humans are usurping all resources, and when the resource dwindles, humans go to war, demanding more.

Sure, there is a short economic gain, BUT what if the emigrant gets older, gets sick, etc?

He is not educated and usually cant get any other jobs. So you will have a 50 year old former construction/ agriculture worker with no chance of doing anything else... Who will pay his expenses? the taxpayers...

Also, our society is much more than just about economics.

I do not care if my meal is a bit cheaper if the guy that serves it thinks it is ok to circumcise women, forbids his daughter go out and sees the west as an enemy....

Just look how rome fell... same arguments. Lets take foreigners in the army, they will assimilate and become citizens....

Well guess what. they did at first until they didnt and the whole country fell...

Similar economic benefits could no doubt be gained by the host countries through the use of so-called 'guest-workers'. Indeed, the benefits might well be greater, given that guest-workers can be paid a great deal less that permanent residents. Saudi Arabia has followed exactly this system for many decades, and seems to have found no shortage of people willing to do the work. They would think it very amusing if anyone were to suggest that they should change to the European way of doing things. Some would say that there is a moral question here, but let us not confuse that with the economics.

Just look at nannies. What happens is that it stops the society from changing. New nurseries do not have to be build, man do not have to take care of the baby more, the women can work. Nannies conserve the old stereotype.

Same with cheap workforce, why innovate if I can have somebody from Africa working for 1 dollar?

when slavery ended there was the biggest jump in productivity in agriculture in American history.

Sorry to say, emigration works ONLY IF IT IS FROM THE SAME CIVILIZATION!!! Just look at the USA, Australia, NZ.... emigration from EUROPE, same civilization, similar culture, similar religion...

I know this is not politically correct, but just look at the startups in Silicon Valley, 50% of them has foreign shareholder or a first gen American BUT all of them are either from EU or from ASIA!! Not Mexico and Africa....

While this is The Economist it would be incorrect to view everything from economic cost/benefit. Societies dont evaluate everything sheerly by economics - People weigh things holistically including social implications. Societies are rightfully worried about being culturally overrun - in london for instance, there are barmen at pubs who can barely speak english because they are not English. While this has it's economic benefits, i am wondering how the English feel about this. 'multicultural britain' sounds nice but the moot point is 'why be multicultural?'. Surely there are people thinking - i can give up 5000 pounds in annual salary if i can be sure everyone speaks English.

Again, there are several examples of immigration being managed well. Here in Malaysia, there was a huge sigh of relief recently when a temp ban on Indonesian maids was lifted. It is an example where society wants a service and the immigration is welcome because the immigrants are culturally similar - indonesian malays coming into malaysia.

Someone mentioned India and Bangladesh. Immigration would be very unwelcome in a hugely people surplus country like India. With India's size, there is so much in-country migration that balances labor shortages when they occur. So foreign labor would be very unwelcome.

1. Illegal immigrants do not receive benefits. Only permanent residents have access to most of them after at least 5 years of working and paying taxes without access to benefits. Asylum seekers receive benefits while their claims are processed and afterwards, if recognized as refugees. Most asylum claims are resolved in less than 6 months.
2. The 'unemployed illegal migrant on benefits sending money home' does not exist (see above).
3. People do not go back because coming to Europe to seek work is difficult, dangerous and expensive. Some migrants were sent by their families who had to take debts in order to finance their journey.
4. The young unemployed people in the banlieues are not migrants but French citizens. For many, France is the only 'home' they have.